# Congress again passes kids health bill



## cigordo

Just FYI all.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071102/ap_on_go_co/children_s_health;_ylt=AhOwVmYBCfcEToQv6DAGV42s0NUE


----------



## glking

No problem, George has promised to veto it again.


----------



## c2000

This is all about politics they passed it again so after Bush vetos it they can say how he hates children for the next month. My mantra is you have em (kids) you pay for em,,don't be asking me for money..

Jerry in Minnesota.


----------



## Jugomugo




----------



## Smoked

Jugomugo said:


>


Now that was funny.


----------



## ComicBookFreak

c2000 said:


> My mantra is you have em (kids) you pay for em,,don't be asking me for money..
> 
> Jerry in Minnesota.


That's a nice mantra to have. And I agree to a point "don't breed 'em if you can't feed 'em."

But sometimes things happen that one can't control, birth defects, Autism, health issues, etc. I would be willing to bet if you had a child who was special needs and you had millions of dollars in Dr. bills and Home nursing charges, *even having insurance*, you would be asking the government for assistance. Even with insurance, Dr. bills for children with special needs can get outrageously expensive. It's always a different story when the shoe is on the other foot. Don't be so quick to say you wouldn't be asking for money, cause when it come to your child you would be begging you butt off to get them care.


----------



## puffstuff

ComicBookFreak said:


> That's a nice mantra to have. And I agree to a point "don't breed 'em if you can't feed 'em."
> 
> But sometimes things happen that one can't control, birth defects, Autism, health issues, etc. I would be willing to bet if you had a child who was special needs and you had millions of dollars in Dr. bills and Home nursing charges, *even having insurance*, you would be asking the government for assistance. Even with insurance, Dr. bills for children with special needs can get outrageously expensive. It's always a different story when the shoe is on the other foot. Don't be so quick to say you wouldn't be asking for money, cause when it come to your child you would be begging you butt off to get them care.


We already have a program for those people, it's called Social Security/Medicaid. Disabled children such as my daughter are already covered by medicaid. That's why we already pay an assload of our paychecks to SSI and Medicare.

Al


----------



## Corona Gigante-cl

Damn that congress, acting all concerned about kids again! Don't they have anything better to do?--like rubber stamping Bush's latest $183 billion war appropriation?



glking said:


> No problem, George has promised to veto it again.


Yeah, this is pretty much a sideshow until they manage to pick up another twelve Republican votes in the House.



c2000 said:


> My mantra is you have em (kids) you pay for em,,don't be asking me for money..


I hope you'll still be chanting your mantra when you need a doctor in twenty years time, or someone to stock the supermarket shelves, or someone to pay into Social Security so you can collect.

With all due respect, I've heard some idiotic arguments against funding SCHIP, but "they're your kids, you pay for them" is by far the nuttiest.


----------



## JaKaAch

c2000 said:


> This is all about politics they passed it again so after Bush vetos it they can say how he hates children for the *next month*. My mantra is you have em (kids) you pay for em,,don't be asking me for money..
> 
> Jerry in Minnesota.


More like the next year. 
Dem's mantra for the next year. "My opponent voted against Children/SCHIP."


----------



## Simplified

I was going to type my opinion here but decided to stick a needle in my eye instead.


----------



## ComicBookFreak

puffstuff said:


> We already have a program for those people, it's called Social Security/Medicaid. Disabled children such as my daughter are already covered by medicaid. That's why we already pay an assload of our paychecks to SSI and Medicare.
> 
> Al


First off you refer to people with disabilities as "those people", so do you consider your daughter one of "those people". I didn't know we refer to them as "those people".

Medicaid doesn't cover everything. And what happens when you need private nursing care and have already reached the 1 or 2 million dollar limit????

Listen, my son has medicaid and private insurance and the medical bills we have are still over 2 million and growing every day. We had to get him into a program called CAP-C just to cover his private duty nursing, because insurance refused to cover it. They had a cap on it monetarily. If you think medicaid pays it all you are really mistaken. Try the last 6 and a half years of your life with a private duty nurse every day. Try fighting with medicaid and private insurance companies, just so your child can have the care they need. I do it every week almost. Of course, my son has a rare disease that only about 250 others in the world have. If you think medicaid is always going to be there for people, then you have no idea.

And just to be clear, I didn't say a thing about the health bill, I was asking Jerry if the shoe were on the other foot, would he still be in favor of not asking for help, as per his mantra " ...you have em (kids) you pay for em,,don't be asking me for money.." That was my original point in my first post.

CBF:w


----------



## muziq

Gettin' a little steamy in here. So, what part of the whole SCHIP thing is pissing in people's Cheerios this go around?:

*The idea of SCHIP - insuring more kids (and some adults)
*The way it's funded in the legislation - increased tobacco taxes
*Republicans vs Democrats - partisan bickering, legislative deadlock, etc

Just curious.

The thing that's primarily got my nickers in a twist is how its funded--increased tobacco taxes. I don't have a problem with a tax increase or with a gov't program that's largely going to help a lot of children gain access to more healthcare. I just think it's stupid to force only smokers to take on the burden of paying for it.


----------



## glking

So, what part of the whole SCHIP thing is pissing in people's Cheerios this go around?:

*The idea of SCHIP - insuring more kids (and some adults)
*It's not about insuring kids--it's all about implementing socialized medicine*
*The way it's funded in the legislation - increased tobacco taxes
*When the cash cow is taxed out of existence, the taxes are going to come from something else....*


----------



## Corona Gigante-cl

muziq said:


> The thing that's primarily got my nickers in a twist is how its funded--increased tobacco taxes. I don't have a problem with a tax increase or with a gov't program that's largely going to help a lot of children gain access to more healthcare. I just think it's stupid to force only smokers to take on the burden of paying for it.


I find nothing in your post, other than your misspelling of _knickers_, with which to disagree.


----------



## Papichulo

muziq said:


> Gettin' a little steamy in here. So, what part of the whole SCHIP thing is pissing in people's Cheerios this go around?:
> 
> *The idea of SCHIP - insuring more kids (and some adults)
> *The way it's funded in the legislation - increased tobacco taxes
> *Republicans vs Democrats - partisan bickering, legislative deadlock, etc
> 
> Just curious.
> 
> The thing that's primarily got my nickers in a twist is how its funded--increased tobacco taxes. I don't have a problem with a tax increase or with a gov't program that's largely going to help a lot of children gain access to more healthcare. I just think it's stupid to force only smokers to take on the burden of paying for it.


Imagine if our borders were secure, start a balls to the wall deportation of illegals (if illegals are going to be separated from their children then take them with you and enter legally), put more border patrols and technology on the borders and imagine all the billions of dollars that would be saved by not providing health care to illegals, paying higher insurance bills to pay for their accidents... Not to mention the numerous crimes, drug trade and taxes that many illegals (not all) are not paying. Medicare does take and pay a lot of the bills. I know all about special need family members so I understand. Taxing the tobacco users is crazy. The scum bags in Congress supporting this mis-advertised bill can kiss my Italian ass!!! Just my two cents.


----------



## Sandman

Simplified said:


> I was going to type my opinion here but decided to stick a needle in my eye instead.


I decided to just punch myself in the balls. It's less painful that way.


----------



## Bigwaved

What I find the most amusing is the way complex problems are smartly packaged in the most simplistic manner. Today's professional politicians are very adept at this. Some of it is due to necessity, but some to skew the subject. This SCHIP program is a result of a complex problem. Brent seems to be attempting to gently remind people that not everything is as black and white as it is presented to the general public. Circumstances can be such that it does not fit into a soundbite or talking point. I guess if it is too difficult to find the time or inclination to become more informed, then reading this post is a waste of time as well.


----------



## yamaha6000

Corona Gigante said:


> Damn that congress, acting all concerned about kids again! Don't they have anything better to do?--like rubber stamping Bush's latest $183 billion war appropriation?
> 
> With all due respect, I've heard some idiotic arguments against funding SCHIP, but "they're your kids, you pay for them" is by far the nuttiest.


Umm, this isn't for kids, it's for middle class families with "kids" being up to 25 years old.
What's wrong with someone wanting YOU to take care of YOUR own kids? I know I don't want to take care of YOUR kids.


----------



## Bigwaved

yamaha6000 said:


> Umm, this isn't for kids, it's for middle class families with "kids" being up to 25 years old.
> What's wrong with someone wanting YOU to take care of YOUR own kids? I know I don't want to take care of YOUR kids.


Since you seem so concerned about paying for things, where do you assume the bill will go for these same people seeking much more costly emergent care due to no avenue for routine care? "Nipping it in the bud" as they say regarding health issues is one of the major benefits to providing care for the individuals that cannot afford it on their own.


----------



## yamaha6000

Bigwaved said:


> Since you seem so concerned about paying for things, where do you assume the bill will go for these same people seeking much more costly emergent care due to no avenue for routine care? "Nipping it in the bud" as they say regarding health issues is one of the major benefits to providing care for the individuals that cannot afford it on their own.


What? I'm not positive I know what your saying, but I'm not against providing some healthcare to individuals. I'm just saying that this SCHIP is more than just for people who can't afford it. It would take many people off of private health coverage that are already paying for it, and put them under governmental health coverage. There's NO need!!!:hn


----------



## Seanohue

Have you guys seen the propaganda ads for these? Absolutely unbelievable.


----------



## Bigwaved

yamaha6000 said:


> _*What? I'm not positive I know what your saying, but I'm not against providing some healthcare to individuals.*_ I'm just saying that this SCHIP is more than just for people who can't afford it. It would take many people off of private health coverage that are already paying for it, and put them under governmental health coverage. There's NO need!!!:hn


If that is what you meant by the below quote, then you could have fooled me...



yamaha6000 said:


> Umm, this isn't for kids, it's for middle class families with "kids" being up to 25 years old.
> What's wrong with someone wanting YOU to take care of YOUR own kids? I know I don't want to take care of YOUR kids.


----------



## SteveDMatt

puffstuff said:


> We already have a program for those people, it's called Social Security/Medicaid. Disabled children such as my daughter are already covered by medicaid. That's why we already pay an assload of our paychecks to SSI and Medicare.
> 
> Al


Actually SSI was implemented as a retirement plan. Over the years the government has decided to suck from that fund for multiple purposes. I don't expect there to be any money in that fund when I get there.



c2000 said:


> This is all about politics they passed it again so after Bush vetos it they can say how he hates children for the next month. My mantra is you have em (kids) you pay for em,,don't be asking me for money..
> 
> Jerry in Minnesota.


This is my philosophy with multiple issues. Why do half of my property taxes go toward sending your children to school?

If SCHIP was for children with disabilities and not just all children whose parents make less than $XXXXX, I would more than likely be for it. If it helped to protect our SSI, it would be more appealing to me. I still think it would need to be funded in a different manner.

I understand taxes are a necessity, but gouging any one group of people is my problem with this. That's why I have a problem with school taxes. Your gouging people without children. If they were to double the federal tax on cigars, I would be OK with that (a maximum of $.10 per cigar), but this proposal is ridiculous.


----------



## AAlmeter

It has dick-diddly to do with funding anything or curing anyone. Any bozo can take a look at England and see the failures of socialism in almost every way. It is about two tag lines, "We tried to save the children" and "We fought against tobacco."

Whether the limps and libs get this passed or not is not the main issue...they just want to be able to spew forth those two lines come election time. However, as a bonus, if it does pass, you increase dependence on the gub'mint. The more people dependent on the gub'mint, the more votes the democrats get. Next thing you know, you have people so concerned with entitlements and looting that they forget to get out of the way of a class 3 hurricane.


----------



## Bigwaved

AAlmeter said:


> It has dick-diddly to do with funding anything or curing anyone. Any bozo can take a look at England and see the failures of socialism in almost every way. It is about two tag lines, "We tried to save the children" and "We fought against tobacco."
> 
> Whether the limps and libs get this passed or not is not the main issue...they just want to be able to spew forth those two lines come election time. However, as a bonus, if it does pass, you increase dependence on the gub'mint. The more people dependent on the gub'mint, the more votes the democrats get. Next thing you know, you have people so concerned with entitlements and looting that they forget to get out of the way of a class 3 hurricane.


_*Arrgggh! Someone stole my lunch money when I was six years old and I haven't recovered yet...
*_


----------



## garilla

I think we all are of the same conclusion that the cigar industry should NOT be the sole funder of this. We also generally agree that "children" at age 25 and families making $80K/year are not exactly classified properly to be included in this bill. $80K/year is far from poverty. My apologies if you feel differently, get that fscking silver spoon out of your mouth and take the place of a Marine for a day in the "sandbox", maybe you'll feel differently.

When looking for the answer, the question is summed into ONE word: _*Why.*_

"We need this because insurance bills are too high."
Why?

"Because doctors charge too much."
Why?

"Because liability insurance is too much."
Why?

"Because lawsuits are expensive."
Why?

Bottom line is you can chase damn near every type of insurance back to the fact that _*lawsuits are absolutely out of control*_. 
(NOTE: I have nothing against lawyers, I really can't fault them here, they know the _ways _to make their income, it just happens to be a LOT more than the average joe makes. Average Joe, don't bitch, invent some moronic device and sell it on the Internet if you want to be a millionaire.)

Our laws regarding lawsuits SUCK. Laws and actions regarding illegal immigrants SUCK. You want to fix any of this? Then keep asking Why until you find the ROOT cause of the problem.

You want to award someone _millions _for spilling coffee in their lap? _*Why!?!?!?!?*_ Complete and utter bullshit.

If it keeps going the way it's going, we're going to have a nation of lazy-assed Gen-Z'ers sitting on their ass all day long sucking on the teat of the Government instead of actually doing what so many generations before them did. _*Earn a living.*_

:sb

- Garilla


----------



## gui_tarzan

Guys, as much as I don't want this new bill to pass either, I read the bill that was sent to the Senate last week and it cuts off the assistance to people older than 18 over the next two years AND it limits the income level to 3X the poverty level which would roughly be $60k for a family of four with two kids under 18. It also has other restrictions the former didn't but regardless of that it still threatens to kill the cigar industry because the idiots in Congress can't get their heads out of their asses long enough to see the funding they are depending on for this will dry up and go away. We need to continue the email, mail and phone campaigns to our congressional (I'm going to puke saying this) _leaders_ until they get it.

Carl Levin replied to me last week with a note saying it would be immoral not to provide health care for these children. No, it's immoral to destroy a legal, thriving business by taxing them to death.


----------



## croatan

garilla said:


> "Because lawsuits are expensive."
> Why?
> 
> Bottom line is you can chase damn near every type of insurance back to the fact that _*lawsuits are absolutely out of control*_.
> (NOTE: I have nothing against lawyers, I really can't fault them here, they know the _ways _to make their income, it just happens to be a LOT more than the average joe makes. Average Joe, don't bitch, invent some moronic device and sell it on the Internet if you want to be a millionaire.)
> 
> Our laws regarding lawsuits SUCK. Laws and actions regarding illegal immigrants SUCK. You want to fix any of this? Then keep asking Why until you find the ROOT cause of the problem.
> 
> You want to award someone _millions _for spilling coffee in their lap? _*Why!?!?!?!?*_ Complete and utter bullshit.


Burn the witch! Er...I mean...let's kill all the lawyers! :tu


----------



## Corona Gigante-cl

AAlmeter said:


> It has dick-diddly to do with funding anything or curing anyone. Any bozo can take a look at England and see the failures of socialism in almost every way. It is about two tag lines, "We tried to save the children" and "We fought against tobacco."


The NHS is a HUGELY popular program in the UK. Not even Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair was able to privatize it. I agree with you, though, Adam, that only a bozo would see it as a failure.


----------



## glking

Corona Gigante said:


> The NHS is a HUGELY popular program in the UK.


So hugely popular that people are flocking to other countries for surgery, and pulling their own teeth.

*From the Economic Times on Oct 28*:

India has emerged the most popular destination for British patients wanting to undergo surgery for ailments that would otherwise take months to treat in the National Health Service (NHS).

In the first major survey of medical tourism, figures show that British citizens have travelled to 112 hospitals in 48 countries for safe, quick and affordable treatment. *NHS hospitals in Britain face long waiting lists and hygiene challenged by superbugs*.

The survey, conducted by the Treatment Abroad website, shows this year over 70,000 British citizens will travel abroad for medical treatment. The figure is expected to rise to 200,000 by the end of the decade.Andrew Lansley, the shadow health secretary, said the figures were a "terrible indictment" of government policies that were undermining the efforts of the NHS staff to provide quality services.

He said: "Healthcare is an area where Britain could be a world beater because we have some of the best research and best clinicians. *If people don't trust the health service, then that is a terrible indictment of this government, which has turned the NHS into a nationalised bureaucracy*, instead of something able to focus on what patients want."

Katherine Murphy of the Patients' Association said that the health tourism figures reflected shrinking public faith in the government's handling of the NHS.

"*People are simply frightened of going to NHS hospitals, so I am not surprised the numbers going abroad are increasing so rapidly*."

*From Dentistry.co.uk on Oct 30 2007*:

The Dentistry Watch survey, overseen by the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health, asked more than 5,200 patients and 750 dentists in England for their views on today's dental service.

*It found six per cent of respondents (276 people) had resorted to self-medication - including pulling out their own teeth - because they were unable to access NHS services*. The survey cited a handful of examples of people who spoke of extracting teeth or fixing broken crowns with glue. One person questioned in Lancashire spoke of carrying out 14 separate extractions with pliers.

It led to a flurry of damning newspaper headlines, including 'Rise of the DIY Dentist' and 'Don't Call That Dentist, Hand Me the Pliers'.

Shadow Health Minister Mike Penning said the report was proof of the 'crisis' the government had created and said: '*It is shocking that patients are being forced to resort to Victorian practices like pulling out their own teeth*.'


----------



## GoodFella

if this bill makes is i am going on well fair and i will let friends use my ebt card to buy junk food $.50 on the $1 so i can buy beer scratchers and cigs with there cash. :BS 

no i would just buy my cigars on line from from some where els. i dont want to help buy a hilary a new car.

the dems are just trying to make the rep look bad now so they can win later


----------



## Bigwaved

GoodFella said:


> if this bill makes is i am going on well fair and i will let friends use my ebt card to buy junk food $.50 on the $1 so i can buy beer scratchers and cigs with there cash. :BS
> 
> no i would just buy my cigars on line from from some where els. i dont want to help buy a hilary a new car.
> 
> the dems are just trying to make the rep look bad now so they can win later


Did you borrow Booker's keyboard?


----------



## ScottishSmoker

I am glad that Bush is vetoing this bill...it keeps this country far away from being a state run Socialist country. The line in the SCHIP bill that entertains me the most is the line deciding for the nation that $83,000.00 is the line of poverty...every state has their own right to decide the line of poverty. Unfortunately, over the next four years this country is going to be totally f*%$ed with the large amount of people who are going to vote wrongly based entirely on the opinions of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. Record numbers of new voters in the coming election are going to be voting with an uneducated stance ultimately electing the wrong candidate.


----------



## Bigwaved

ScottishSmoker said:


> I am glad that Bush is vetoing this bill...it keeps this country far away from being a state run Socialist country. The line in the SCHIP bill that entertains me the most is the line deciding for the nation that $83,000.00 is the line of poverty...every state has their own right to decide the line of poverty. Unfortunately, over the next four years this country is going to be totally f*%$ed with the large amount of people who are going to vote wrongly based entirely on the opinions of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. Record numbers of new voters in the coming election are going to be voting with an uneducated stance ultimately electing the wrong candidate.


I think youy may be misunderstanding the poverty line. The figure you quote is a multiple of it, not it, I believe. As far as your statement regarding uneducated voters...well, one could argue that this has been happening for quite some time now. Believe it or not, both parties have their fools. An interesting poll shows over 3/4ths of people asked believe the country is headed in the wrong direction right now. Given your take on why, the Neilson ratings for the shows they are on must be through the roof...Or, maybe they are tired of the comedian they have been forced to listen to for the last six years.


----------



## glking

Bigwaved said:


> An interesting poll shows over 3/4ths of people asked believe the country is headed in the wrong direction right now.


I wonder why? Even though the US economy is stronger than it has ever been, and US citizens are more prosperous than they have ever been, all we ever see on the news is stories about how bad the economy supposedly is.

If people are stupid enough to believe the drive-by media, then they probably do think the country is headed in the wrong direction.

In the poll you quote, who was polled, and what was the exact question?


----------



## GoodFella

Bigwaved said:


> Did you borrow Booker's keyboard?


:w

who Tj?
i dont think so


----------



## Bigwaved

glking said:


> I wonder why? Even though the US economy is stronger than it has ever been, and US citizens are more prosperous than they have ever been, all we ever see on the news is stories about how bad the economy supposedly is.
> 
> If people are stupid enough to believe the drive-by media, then they probably do think the country is headed in the wrong direction.
> 
> In the poll you quote, who was polled, and what was the exact question?


Maybe people are not listening to the drive-by media that touts a bustling economy and how prosperous they are. Maybe they are looking at the impending forclosure of their home or the outsourcing of their jobs or the declining strenght of the U.S. dollar worldwide. Or, just maybe, they are one of the unemployed that are knocked off the statistics of the unemployed % not from obtaining a job, but instead because their benefits ran out from being unemployed to for so long. There are plenty of possiblities. Another would be that some may care more about things than strictly the economy when judging the direction we are headed.


----------



## Bigwaved

GoodFella said:


> :w
> 
> who Tj?
> i dont think so


No, the one on this board.


----------



## GoodFella

So let me get this right. I should give my money away to someone who can't 
keep a job to take care of there kids. They loss there house because they loss 
there job. They loss there job to china right? We also should give money to every one who comes over illegal also? 

Do you care about the kids in the countries that this bill will be taking food out of there mouth. A lot of countries hate Americans do you want to add some more to that list.:2


----------



## glking

Bigwaved said:


> Maybe people are not listening to the drive-by media that touts a bustling economy and how prosperous they are. Maybe they are looking at the impending forclosure of their home or the outsourcing of their jobs or the declining strenght of the U.S. dollar worldwide. Or, just maybe, they are one of the unemployed that are knocked off the statistics of the unemployed % not from obtaining a job, but instead because their benefits ran out from being unemployed to for so long. There are plenty of possiblities. Another would be that some may care more about things than strictly the economy when judging the direction we are headed.


Myybe, maybe,...maybe people shouldn't have signed for loans they knew they would't be able to pay.

*Lets talk FACTS:*

*Unemployment claims make surprise drop*

Thursday, September 20, 2007 8:37 AM

WASHINGTON (AP) -- *The number of laid-off workers filing claims for unemployment benefits fell to the lowest level in seven weeks*, an unexpected sign of improvement for the jobs market.
The Labor Department reported Thursday that new applications for unemployment benefits totaled 311,000 last week, a drop of 9,000 from the previous week. *It marked the lowest level for jobless claims since July 28.*


----------



## AAlmeter

Corona Gigante said:


> The NHS is a HUGELY popular program in the UK. Not even Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair was able to privatize it. I agree with you, though, Adam, that only a bozo would see it as a failure.


If the government gave away beer and blow jobs it would be popular too...but that doesnt mean its a good idea.

And of course it has been a great success....thats why you fly back for every toothache, right?


----------



## Bigwaved

glking said:


> Myybe, maybe,...maybe people shouldn't have signed for loans they knew they would't be able to pay.
> 
> *Lets talk FACTS:*
> 
> *Unemployment claims make surprise drop*
> 
> Thursday, September 20, 2007 8:37 AM
> 
> WASHINGTON (AP) -- *The number of laid-off workers filing claims for unemployment benefits fell to the lowest level in seven weeks*, an unexpected sign of improvement for the jobs market.
> The Labor Department reported Thursday that new applications for unemployment benefits totaled 311,000 last week, a drop of 9,000 from the previous week. *It marked the lowest level for jobless claims since July 28.*


LOL. Yup. You are selling people short on intelligence to wade through the media spin, yet you assume they are able to figure out the complexities of a loan. Classic. It is also a fact that the drive-by media you speak of cherry picked such a small frame of reference as well. How are we doing over the last six years? I am fairly sure the people in this counrty will need more than a blip on the screen to draw a conclusion towards a positive trend.


----------



## AAlmeter

Bigwaved said:


> How are we doing over the last six years? I am fairly sure the people in this counrty will need more than a blip on the screen to draw a conclusion towards a positive trend.


Down about 1% over the past 5-6 years


----------



## glking

Bigwaved said:


> LOL. Yup. You are selling people short on intelligence to wade through the media spin, yet you assume they are able to figure out the complexities of a loan. Classic. It is also a fact that the drive-by media you speak of cherry picked such a small frame of reference as well. How are we doing over the last six years? I am fairly sure the people in this counrty will need more than a blip on the screen to draw a conclusion towards a positive trend.


You had to ask....

Here are more *FACTS*:

*Fact Sheet: October 2007 Marks Record 50th Consecutive Month of Job Growth*

_8.31 Million Jobs Created Since August 2003 In Longest Continuous Months Of Job Growth On Record_ 
*November 2, 2007, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released new jobs figures - 166,000 jobs created in October. *Since August 2003, 8.31 million jobs have been created, with 1.68 million jobs created over the 12 months that ended in October. Our economy has now added jobs for 50 straight months - the longest period of uninterrupted job growth on record. The unemployment rate remains low at 4.7 percent. 
*The U.S. Economy Remains Strong, Flexible, And Dynamic*

*Real GDP grew at a strong 3.9 percent in the third quarter of 2007.* The economy has now experienced six years of uninterrupted growth, averaging 2.8 percent a year since 2001.

*Real after-tax per capita personal income has risen by 12.7 percent - an average of over $3,800 per person - since President Bush took office.*

*Real wages rose 1.2 percent over the 12 months that ended in September. *This rise is faster than the average rate during the 1990s.

*Since the first quarter of 2001, productivity growth has averaged 2.6 percent per year. *This growth is well above average productivity growth in the 1990s, 1980s, and 1970s.

*The deficit today is at 1.2 percent of GDP, well below the 40-year average. *Economic growth contributed to a 6.7 percent rise in tax receipts in FY 2007, following an increase of 11.8 percent in FY 2006.


----------



## adsantos13

glking said:


> Myybe, maybe,...maybe people shouldn't have signed for loans they knew they would't be able to pay.


Just going to jump in here for a moment to add one point re:the "subprime crisis". You cannot simply say it the fault of people taking out loans in a haphazard fashion. It does play a role, but it is far more complicated than that.

Some people were overzealous investors spurred on by the giant leaps in housing market along with historic low interest rates. They took out loans because they assumed their purchase would appreciate in the booming market and they could then sell the house before the adjustable rate kicked in. These people were speculators and not just schmoes taking out loans they couldn't pay back. When you gamble, sometimes you lose.

Others were irresponsible, and didn't read the fine print or didnt plan their finances very well.

And finally, the big banks. They made A FORTUNE securitizing these subprime loans and as with anything where people are getting rich, they became less and less concerned with the old underwriting standards used to filter who was eligible to be given loans. Further, fortunes were made using predatory lending practices because the banks cutting the loans were turning right around and selling the loans as securities and were no longer concerned with people defaulting.

So, sorry for the OT stuff, but wanted to clear up what I perceived to be an oversimplification.


----------



## Bigwaved

AAlmeter said:


> Down about 1% over the past 5-6 years





glking said:


> You had to ask....
> 
> Here are more *FACTS*:
> 
> *Fact Sheet: October 2007 Marks Record 50th Consecutive Month of Job Growth*
> 
> _8.31 Million Jobs Created Since August 2003 In Longest Continuous Months Of Job Growth On Record_
> *November 2, 2007, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released new jobs figures - 166,000 jobs created in October. *Since August 2003, 8.31 million jobs have been created, with 1.68 million jobs created over the 12 months that ended in October. Our economy has now added jobs for 50 straight months - the longest period of uninterrupted job growth on record. The unemployment rate remains low at 4.7 percent.
> *The U.S. Economy Remains Strong, Flexible, And Dynamic*
> 
> *Real GDP grew at a strong 3.9 percent in the third quarter of 2007.* The economy has now experienced six years of uninterrupted growth, averaging 2.8 percent a year since 2001.
> 
> *Real after-tax per capita personal income has risen by 12.7 percent - an average of over $3,800 per person - since President Bush took office.*
> 
> *Real wages rose 1.2 percent over the 12 months that ended in September. *This rise is faster than the average rate during the 1990s.
> 
> *Since the first quarter of 2001, productivity growth has averaged 2.6 percent per year. *This growth is well above average productivity growth in the 1990s, 1980s, and 1970s.
> 
> *The deficit today is at 1.2 percent of GDP, well below the 40-year average. *Economic growth contributed to a 6.7 percent rise in tax receipts in FY 2007, following an increase of 11.8 percent in FY 2006.


Would you care to expand on what jobs are being created? I would venture a guess that replacing a middle wage job with two or three minimum wage ones does not constitute growth. Real wage growth of 1.25 versus what cost of living increases? Believe me, if someone cared to look a little, they could surely find data crunching statistics that paint a different picture. Last I checked, this source you mention is part of the government. It is self reporting. It has its leadership position appointed by the President, correct? It seems like like the fox could be in charge of guarding the hen house. I am sure we will see how it all pans out next election. If the economy is so clearly going like gang busters and our direction is preferred, then status quo should prevail.


----------



## Bigwaved

adsantos13 said:


> Just going to jump in here for a moment to add one point re:the "subprime crisis". You cannot simply say it the fault of people taking out loans in a haphazard fashion. It does play a role, but it is far more complicated than that.
> 
> Some people were overzealous investors spurred on by the giant leaps in housing market along with historic low interest rates. They took out loans because they assumed their purchase would appreciate in the booming market and they could then sell the house before the adjustable rate kicked in. These people were speculators and not just schmoes taking out loans they couldn't pay back. When you gamble, sometimes you lose.
> 
> Others were irresponsible, and didn't read the fine print or didnt plan their finances very well.
> 
> And finally, the big banks. They made A FORTUNE securitizing these subprime loans and as with anything where people are getting rich, they became less and less concerned with the old underwriting standards used to filter who was eligible to be given loans. Further, fortunes were made using predatory lending practices because the banks cutting the loans were turning right around and selling the loans as securities and were no longer concerned with people defaulting.
> 
> So, sorry for the OT stuff, but wanted to clear up what I perceived to be an oversimplification.


Actually, it is right on topic. It goes right along with the discussion.


----------



## Papichulo

garilla said:


> I think we all are of the same conclusion that the cigar industry should NOT be the sole funder of this. We also generally agree that "children" at age 25 and families making $80K/year are not exactly classified properly to be included in this bill. $80K/year is far from poverty. My apologies if you feel differently, get that fscking silver spoon out of your mouth and take the place of a Marine for a day in the "sandbox", maybe you'll feel differently.
> 
> When looking for the answer, the question is summed into ONE word: _*Why.*_
> 
> "We need this because insurance bills are too high."
> Why?
> 
> "Because doctors charge too much."
> Why?
> 
> "Because liability insurance is too much."
> Why?
> 
> "Because lawsuits are expensive."
> Why?
> 
> Bottom line is you can chase damn near every type of insurance back to the fact that _*lawsuits are absolutely out of control*_.
> (NOTE: I have nothing against lawyers, I really can't fault them here, they know the _ways _to make their income, it just happens to be a LOT more than the average joe makes. Average Joe, don't bitch, invent some moronic device and sell it on the Internet if you want to be a millionaire.)
> 
> Our laws regarding lawsuits SUCK. Laws and actions regarding illegal immigrants SUCK. You want to fix any of this? Then keep asking Why until you find the ROOT cause of the problem.
> 
> You want to award someone _millions _for spilling coffee in their lap? _*Why!?!?!?!?*_ Complete and utter bullshit.
> 
> If it keeps going the way it's going, we're going to have a nation of lazy-assed Gen-Z'ers sitting on their ass all day long sucking on the teat of the Government instead of actually doing what so many generations before them did. _*Earn a living.*_
> 
> :sb
> 
> - Garilla


I hear you. If we want to fund child care insurance deportation is the answer for the billions of dollars we the taxpayers are spending on illegals.


----------



## glking

Bigwaved said:


> Would you care to expand on what jobs are being created? I would venture a guess that replacing a middle wage job with two or three minimum wage ones does not constitute growth. Real wage growth of 1.25 versus what cost of living increases? Believe me, if someone cared to look a little, they could surely find data crunching statistics that paint a different picture. Last I checked, this source you mention is part of the government. It is self reporting. It has its leadership position appointed by the President, correct? It seems like like the fox could be in charge of guarding the hen house. I am sure we will see how it all pans out next election. If the economy is so clearly going like gang busters and our direction is preferred, then status quo should prevail.


You have my sympathy. It must be terrible to be so unhappy and stuck in a country the you mistrust & dislike so much.


----------



## AAlmeter

Bigwaved said:


> Would you care to expand on what jobs are being created? I would venture a guess that replacing a middle wage job with two or three minimum wage ones does not constitute growth. Real wage growth of 1.25 versus what cost of living increases? Believe me, if someone cared to look a little, they could surely find data crunching statistics that paint a different picture. Last I checked, this source you mention is part of the government. It is self reporting. It has its leadership position appointed by the President, correct? It seems like like the fox could be in charge of guarding the hen house. I am sure we will see how it all pans out next election. If the economy is so clearly going like gang busters and our direction is preferred, then status quo should prevail.


I thought the world was ending because all of our lower and middle income jobs were being shipped overseas? Now you're saying it's ending because we're increasing the number of lower income jobs?


----------



## adsantos13

glking said:


> You have my sympathy. It must be terrible to be so unhappy and stuck in a country the you mistrust & dislike so much.


Uhhh, where exactly did Bigwaved say he disliked America? Expressing a point of view where you think something can be done differently or better or contrary to someone else's does not equate with being anti-american.

But what do I know, Im the son of an immigrant who probably should of been deported.


----------



## JAK

adsantos13 said:


> Uhhh, where exactly did Bigwaved say he disliked America? Expressing a point of view where you think something can be done differently or better or contrary to someone else's does not equate with being anti-american.
> 
> But what do I know, Im the son of an immigrant who probably should of been deported.


I agree with Bigwaved. And I don't hate America, if I hated the place I would leave. Its because I LOVE America that I want to see it at its best, which is not where it's at right now.


----------



## glking

adsantos13 said:


> Uhhh, where exactly did Bigwaved say he disliked America? Expressing a point of view where you think something can be done differently or better or contrary to someone else's does not equate with being anti-american.
> 
> But what do I know, Im the son of an immigrant who probably should of been deported.


Perception is everything. I have yet to hear a single positive comment about our country from Bigwaved.

If a positive fact about the country is brought up, it is labeled a lie.

If a negative lie is brought up, it is automatically assumd to be true.

I would love to hear about ways of doing things better.


----------



## adsantos13

glking said:


> Perception is everything. I have yet to hear a single positive comment about our country from Bigwaved.
> 
> If a positive fact about the country is brought up, it is labeled a lie.
> 
> If a negative lie is brought up, it is automatically assumd to be true.
> 
> I would love to hear about ways of doing things better.


Maybe you haven't heard a positive comment because this thread is specifically arguing one relatively small aspect of the United States and its domestic policies.

Anyway, I am going to stop speaking for Bigwaved. I will say though, that I love America and would not want to live anywhere else. Further, everyday I wake up I feel lucky to live in a country where I can say, do, work, and live as I please. Going further, feeling this way does not mean I cannot find one or many things wrong with the United States. There is no such thing as utopia and Im thankful that at least, we have the right to actually discuss ideas freely and try to implement changes for the better.

Its sad that polticial rhetoric has become so polarized that it now equates opposing arguments as dangerous, unpatriotic, and signifying a hatred for the country (sadly, these tactics are exploited by both sides of the spectrum).


----------



## Bigwaved

glking said:


> Perception is everything. I have yet to hear a single positive comment about our country from Bigwaved.
> 
> If a positive fact about the country is brought up, it is labeled a lie.
> 
> If a negative lie is brought up, it is automatically assumd to be true.
> 
> I would love to hear about ways of doing things better.


You, my friend, are assuming a lot. That, my friend, does not surprise me. You, my friend, are easily confused, in my opinion. I, on the other hand, do not confuse my country and what it stands for. I know for sure it is not poor policy or politics. That surely escapes you, but again, I am not surprised by this. I am not offended by your assumption though. I know exactly how I feel. So, you can keep your sympathy. I can do without it.


----------



## GoodFella

i love the usa 
ya there is a few problems 
after living is other countries and coming here its the best place 
i just dont want to work extra hard to support my family and some crack head
so stop watching michael moore and step back from the bong


----------



## Bigwaved

AAlmeter said:


> I thought the world was ending because all of our lower and middle income jobs were being shipped overseas? Now you're saying it's ending because we're increasing the number of lower income jobs?


Well, the world is not ending, but you can make any leap you desire. I do believe you can have multiple reasons that can be attributed to something. Your straw man argument is what is though...


----------



## adsantos13

GoodFella said:


> i love the usa
> ya there is a few problems
> after living is other countries and coming here its the best place
> i just dont want to work extra hard to support my family and some crack head
> so stop watching michael moore and step back from the bong


Step back from the bong?? 

What are you talking about?


----------



## Bigwaved

GoodFella said:


> i love the usa
> ya there is a few problems
> after living is other countries and coming here its the best place
> i just dont want to work extra hard to support my family and some crack head
> _*so stop watching michael moore and step back from the bong*_


I find this comment laughable. If someone disagrees with your opinion, then they must be watching Michael Moore or smoking dope? Wow...


----------



## GoodFella

liberals:w


----------



## GoodFella

:tugood luck with things 
i am done 
we are trying to change every one and we wont
have fund with your cigars see you around


----------



## Bigwaved

So, let us tally the score here:

I have been accused of being unhappy.
I have been accused of distrusting and disliking my country.
I have been accused of being stuck in this country.
I have been accused of predicting the end of the world.
And, I have been lumped in with an imaginary group of people smoking dope in a bong maybe while watching Michael Moore.

Sweet. I suppose I can skip my counseling session with Lucy on Peanuts with all this help from the select few experts that so generously want to help me...


----------



## Bigwaved

GoodFella said:


> liberals:w


See, that is closed minded. I am a moderate. You seem to think anyone who does not agree with you lock, stock and barrel must be a liberal.


----------



## Bigwaved

GoodFella said:


> :tugood luck with things
> i am done
> we are trying to change every one and we wont
> have fund with your cigars see you around


Yes, calling people bong smoking, Michael Moore watching liberals is usually the best way to change anyone's mind about something...


----------



## AAlmeter

Bigwaved said:


> You, my friend, are assuming a lot. That, my friend, does not surprise me. You, my friend, are easily confused, in my opinion. I, on the other hand, do not confuse my country and what it stands for. I know for sure it is not poor policy or politics. That surely escapes you, but again, I am not surprised by this. I am not offended by your assumption though. I know exactly how I feel. So, you can keep your sympathy. I can do without it.


Lets please keep this civil. In accordance with the new unofficial CS policy, you have committed a hate crime by using moderate strength words in your argument. All political discussion must be kept extremely passive otherwise it will be ceased. 

Onwards...you are correct, you did not use the worlds "the world is ending". I apologize for putting words in your mouth. I do, however, find it funny that in this thread you have said that:

-you cannot base estimates of the economy on 7 weeks of data because its too short
-you cannot base estimates of the economy on 7 +/- years of data because its probably a lie
-we are losing middle income jobs, but are growing 2 new lower income jobs for every middle income job lost
-and I'm sure, somewhere, I could find a post about how we're losing lower income jobs as they are being shipped overseas

While I have neither the time nor the interest to attempt to persuade you in any direction, I just hope you can see while people can get frustrated in talking to you. There just isn't a path to follow. You show no cause and effect, no reasons for your beliefs, no evidence to back up your opinion. Its cool that you have an opinion and everything, and it is certainly your right to have one, but it is difficult to discuss it when it seems to come out of thin air.

But, I must admit, it is fun...so here is my opinion based on 0 facts:

Hillary Clinton is a really Chinese man, Hung So Lo, who has been stealing government and industrial secrets for years and will, using his legs of steel, run this country into communism.


----------



## Bigwaved

AAlmeter said:


> Lets please keep this civil.


Please do not take a portion of my comment and draw a conclusion. I do not believe it uncivil to consider his perception about my feelings towards this country as "confused". Also, it seems clear to me that it does "escape" him that one could have issue with a policy or the politics within this country without "mistrusting" or "disliking" it.


----------



## AAlmeter

Bigwaved said:


> Please do not take a portion of my comment and draw a conclusion. I do not believe it uncivil to consider his perception about my feelings towards this country as "confused". Also, it seems clear to me that it does "escape" him that one could have issue with a policy or the politics within this country without "mistrusting" or "disliking" it.


I made that comment as more of a shot at the few on this board who suffer from testicular strangulation due to panty twistation every there is a disagreement on CS.

I see nothing wrong with you calling someone confused. In fact, I encourage it....it provides me with a good belly laugh.

So now, just so I can get it straight...in planning my personal investments, do you suggest I look at the short term economic indicators or the long term? Or should I just say the hell with them and just guess at how the economy is doing? :r


----------



## Bigwaved

AAlmeter said:


> I do, however, find it funny that in this thread you have said that:
> 
> -you cannot base estimates of the economy on 7 weeks of data because its too short
> 
> _Do you disagree with my statement that the people I am referring to, the one's who do not like the course in which they perceive this country headed, may need more of long term trend than the example given? Or that they may have issue with more than the economy?_
> 
> -you cannot base estimates of the economy on 7 +/- years of data because its probably a lie
> 
> _Do you disagree that most Presidents lean towards selecting/nominating individuals which tend to fall more towards their side of the coin, so to speak? With that in mind, they may change up what or how the statistical data is reported? I really did not think that was much of a stretch, but if you say so..._
> 
> -we are losing middle income jobs, but are growing 2 new lower income jobs for every middle income job lost
> 
> _I believe you are reading into my statement somewhat here. That is my fault for not stating it as well as I should have. I will attempt to clarify me thoughts regarding this. If the statistic of job growth is used as an economic growth indicator, it would seem plausible that it could be a misrepresentation of that if middle or higher wage jobs were being replaced by a larger sum of minimum wage level jobs. I am not an economist, but that seems to be a problem. Again, this was based off of the original statement by someone insinuating that people who do not feel like the economy is stronger than ever and more prosperous must be stupid to think otherwise. This was my attempt to explain why they may not feel either of those statements are true._
> 
> -and I'm sure, somewhere, I could find a post about how we're losing lower income jobs as they are being shipped overseas
> 
> _Search away, I do not remember doing that._
> 
> While I have neither the time nor the interest to attempt to persuade you in any direction, I just hope you can see while people can get frustrated in talking to you. There just isn't a path to follow. You show no cause and effect, no reasons for your beliefs, no evidence to back up your opinion. Its cool that you have an opinion and everything, and it is certainly your right to have one, but it is difficult to discuss it when it seems to come out of thin air.
> 
> _Hey, no problem. I find it hard to stay on topic with some people due to their constant sidetracking of the original topic. I can see where you may have difficulty keeping up._
> 
> But, I must admit, it is fun...so here is my opinion based on 0 facts:
> 
> Hillary Clinton is a really Chinese man, Hung So Lo, who has been stealing government and industrial secrets for years and will, using his legs of steel, run this country into communism.


...


----------



## Bigwaved

AAlmeter said:


> I made that comment as more of a shot at the few on this board who suffer from testicular strangulation due to panty twistation every there is a disagreement on CS.
> 
> I see nothing wrong with you calling someone confused. In fact, I encourage it....it provides me with a good belly laugh.
> 
> So now, just so I can get it straight...in planning my personal investments, do you suggest I look at the short term economic indicators or the long term? Or should I just say the hell with them and just guess at how the economy is doing? :r


I would say you use more than one source to interpret the indicators. I definitely think you should compare how the data was statistically reported. Statistics have has be known to be skewed to help paint a certain picture...


----------



## AAlmeter

OK, you insinuate that Bush's henchmen are fudging the numbers. I'll go with that. What of the S&P 500, the Dow? Why have they shown such growth over the past 5 or so years if the economy is tanking? 

My point is, you question these indicators and provide hints at your own opinion on the economy, but you give zero support for your argument other than the fact that its your opinion. While everyone is entitled to an opinion, that does not mean it is a good one. If you could show any sort of evidence pointing at politics factoring into the reporting of our economy or the markets, or any evidence that the economy is failing, I may stop laughing and be able to "keep up" with your well informed and well stated opinions.


----------



## Bigwaved

AAlmeter said:


> OK, you insinuate that Bush's henchmen are fudging the numbers. I'll go with that. What of the S&P 500, the Dow? Why have they shown such growth over the past 5 or so years if the economy is tanking?
> 
> My point is, you question these indicators and provide hints at your own opinion on the economy, but you give zero support for your argument other than the fact that its your opinion. While everyone is entitled to an opinion, that does not mean it is a good one. If you could show any sort of evidence pointing at politics factoring into the reporting of our economy or the markets, or any evidence that the economy is failing, I may stop laughing and be able to "keep up" with your well informed and well stated opinions.


Actually, to catch you up, I responded to the claim the the economy of today is the strongest ever and the people who live in the country are the most prosperous, ever. So, you may want to believe I am saying this economy is failing, but that is not what I said. Please find where I stated we are in a failing economy.


----------



## AAlmeter

Bigwaved said:


> Actually, to catch you up, I responded to the claim the the economy of today is the strongest ever and the people who live in the country are the most prosperous, ever. So, you may want to believe I am saying this economy is failing, but that is not what I said. Please find where I stated we are in a failing economy.


My apologies...you are correct. You made no statement or thought of your own. You did, however, speak for the people. If you could talk to the people again, see exactly why the people feel that the economy is not doing well. I don't mean why people's personal finances are poor, but why the people, for whom you speak, feel that the economy is not doing as well as is indicated.


----------



## RETSF

My :2 is this, we don't need this chips pgm in the 1st place, medicade and medicare are in place - they may need up dating a bit but they are available for those in need. The chips is no more than getting a foothold to launch universal healthcare, emotional trigger words such as its for the childern is nothing more than a means justify their end objective. The expectation is that since its for the childern the sheep in this country will go right along with it, part of that feel good factor we did it for the countries childern. The problem is the country isn't funding this pgm - we are expected to. I'm real impressed with this "we" when it's not we the country, it's we a certain segment of society that is expected to provide for "our childern". The Nancy P's and the sheep in this country will still sleep well when they don't fund the program because the government will fund the free medical at someone else's expense. The supporters in the HOR and Senate don't have the nads to apply the tax burden to the entire American society because they would be voted out of office during the next election.


----------



## Bigwaved

AAlmeter said:


> My apologies...you are correct. You made no statement or thought of your own. You did, however, speak for the people. If you could talk to the people again, see exactly why the people feel that the economy is not doing well. I don't mean why people's personal finances are poor, but why the people, for whom you speak, feel that the economy is not doing as well as is indicated.


Actually, I did make a statement and it was of my own thought. It was to say that this economy is not the strongest ever and that people are not more prosperous ever. I have no problem agreeing with you if you can show me how these claims are true.


----------



## muziq

From the Economic Policy Institute, a non-partisan analysis think-tank:

SCHIP is not eroding private health coverage: http://www.epi.org/content.cfm?id=2789

Economy's gains fail to reach most workers paychecks: http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/bp195


----------



## AAlmeter

Bigwaved said:


> Actually, I did make a statement and it was of my own thought. It was to say that this economy is not the strongest ever and that people are not more prosperous ever. I have no problem agreeing with you if you can show me how these claims are true.


You're putting words in my mouth! You're putting words in my mouth!

When did I say this economy was the strongest ever?

I am simply refuting any claim that we're going in the shitter. The economy has shown consistent growth over the past 5 to 10 years.

The sub-prime crisis, though huge in the news, effects a small percentage of people. Tough nuggets for them. If they were using the loans as an investment vehicle...you lost...thats investment. If they lost their house, maybe you should have thought further about buying a $250,000 house on a 40k income. And as for the lending institutions...tough nuggets for them too. Just because someone overspent and lost his house and its all over the news does not mean the economy is collapsing. It is all about taking responsibility for one's own actions. Which reminds me...why is it that I have to pay for other people's kids again?

And as far as EPI...take a look here http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/board to see how non-partisan they are. Looks like tweed is now acceptable attire for the next Apalachin Meeting.


----------



## GOAT LOCKER

muziq said:


> From the Economic Policy Institute, a non-partisan analysis think-tank:
> 
> SCHIP is not eroding private health coverage: http://www.epi.org/content.cfm?id=2789
> 
> Economy's gains fail to reach most workers paychecks: http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/bp195


EPI is NOT a non-partisan organisation. They are a socialist/progressive/left group founded by a Jeff Faux (his real name), that includes vehemently anti-american leadership that has called President Bush a murderer and the USA a "terrorist nation" and leaders from NINE (!) labor unions on their board of directors. No partisanship there... :tu


----------



## Corona Gigante-cl

glking said:


> So hugely popular that people are flocking to other countries for surgery, and pulling their own teeth...


Obviously you're fond of sensationalistic stories from sources of questionable impartiality. It's unfortunate that it's at that level at which you choose to participate in the debate.

I didn't say the NHS was perfect, but it does succeed at providing a basic level of healthcare to the entire population free of charge at the point of service. When I said it was popular, I didn't mean that people won't find things to grumble about, I meant that like social security in this country, it would be political suicide for any political party which attempted to discontinue the program. People with the means and the inclination can seek private medical care outside of the government run system, those without are guaranteed a basic level of service.

I am tired of quoting statistics for the number of Americans without any health coverage, the relationship between healthcare crises and personal bankruptcies, the cost of providing emergency care compared to the cost of basic health maintenance, infant mortality and life expectancy rates in the US when compared to other Western industrialized nations (almost all of which provide government run health care to their populations), etc, etc. If you're interested in the subject, you should dig around a little and inform yourself. You might be surprised by what you discover.


----------



## muziq

GOAT LOCKER said:


> EPI is NOT a non-partisan organisation. They are a socialist/progressive/left group founded by a Jeff Faux (his real name), that includes vehemently anti-american leadership that has called President Bush a murderer and the USA a "terrorist nation" and leaders from NINE (!) labor unions on their board of directors. No partisanship there... :tu


1. They claim to be non-partisan. That's all I'll vouche for. Like Fox News is "fair and balanced."

2. Reading their analyses, I'd call them center-left if I had to, but enough of their periodic economic snapshots speak as positively of the economy as they do negatively, suggesting that as the economic indicators change, their analyses change. That's fact-based analysis, not partisanship.

3. I can't/won't comment on Jeff Faux, or on any of the attributes you ascribe to their "leadership." I haven't come across any evidence of that, but I'm not so concerned about it because I don't read that in the pieces from this organization. If you find one, let me know and I might change my tune, but otherwise those are worthless ad hominem attacks.

4. Labor unions? Dogging labor unions? Ugh, that's stale, especially given the degree to which their collective platform has been moving to a fundamentally protectionist argument against outsourcing in an effort to protect and grow blue-collar manufacturing and service jobs. It's a touch more complex than that tired old chestnut.


----------



## GOAT LOCKER

muziq said:


> 1. *They claim to be non-partisan.* LOL! That's all I'll vouche for. Like Fox News is "fair and balanced." Fox has a news channel?
> 
> 2. Reading their analyses, I'd call them center-left if I had to, but enough of their periodic economic snapshots speak as positively of the economy as they do negatively, suggesting that as the economic indicators change, their analyses change. That's fact-based analysis, not partisanship. Left, center-left, I guess it depends on ones perspective.
> 
> 3. I can't/won't comment on Jeff Faux, or on any of the attributes you ascribe to their "leadership." I haven't come across any evidence of that, but I'm not so concerned about it because I don't read that in the pieces from this organization. If you find one, let me know and I might change my tune, Fair enough, but I'll let you look them up yourself. Not hard to find... but otherwise those are worthless ad hominem attacks. Ad hominem? I was challenging your assertion that EPI was non partisan. As for their report, you may refer to the CBO report for a little more balance.
> 
> 4. Labor unions? Dogging labor unions? Ugh, that's stale, especially given the degree to which their collective platform has been moving to a fundamentally protectionist argument against outsourcing in an effort to protect and grow blue-collar manufacturing and service jobs. It's a touch more complex than that tired old chestnut. Um, not sure where I "dogged" labor unions. Just pointed out that the group is not exactly well rounded or non-partisan.


BTW, the CBO report predicted a large shift from private insurance to schip under the new proposal. The EPI report references figures from The Urban Institute, another left leaning organization. There is no way to know which if either is accurate, but I certainly consider the source ...


----------



## GOAT LOCKER

muziq said:


> 3. I can't/won't comment on Jeff Faux, or on any of the attributes you ascribe to their "leadership." I haven't come across any evidence of that, but I'm not so concerned about it because I don't read that in the pieces from this organization. If you find one, let me know


OK, I said I'd let you look them up yourself, but starting with the founder and first two board member on the list;

The founder, Jeff Faux, not sure why you can't/won't comment on him, but he's right at home with the two above. He has publicly called for the impeachment of George Bush (a non-partisan position for sure), and is a darling of the progressive circuit with his published views on global government, social justice and class warfare.

Next, here is The EPI CHAIRMAN of the Board's BLOG It won't take long to figure his partisan leanings, I promise.

Next on their list of board members is Jullianne Malveaux, famous quotes include this gem on Justice Thomas: _"I hope [Thomas's] wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter, and he dies early, like many black men do, of heart disease. . . .He's an absolutely reprehensible person." _Or on President Bush: _"George W. Bush is evil. He is a terrorist. He is evil. He is arrogant. And he is out of control." _And there's plenty more from this non-partisan.

That's not to say some of these people are not smart, or even brilliant, or that they don't have some good ideas and valid research, but non-partisan they are not.

On topic, if America wants socialized health care, and it appears many do, we need something a lot better than SCHIP. Hopefully this will be killed again. :BS It is unfortunate that we have reached the point where we can't have a national debate about this kind of stuff without lies, distortion and demagoguery. I'm not talking about this thread, as it has stayed pretty calm, but about our politicians and political commentators in the old/new media.


----------



## Bigwaved

AAlmeter said:


> You're putting words in my mouth! You're putting words in my mouth!
> 
> When did I say this economy was the strongest ever?
> 
> I am simply refuting any claim that we're going in the shitter. The economy has shown consistent growth over the past 5 to 10 years.
> 
> The sub-prime crisis, though huge in the news, effects a small percentage of people. Tough nuggets for them. If they were using the loans as an investment vehicle...you lost...thats investment. If they lost their house, maybe you should have thought further about buying a $250,000 house on a 40k income. And as for the lending institutions...tough nuggets for them too. Just because someone overspent and lost his house and its all over the news does not mean the economy is collapsing. It is all about taking responsibility for one's own actions. Which reminds me...why is it that I have to pay for other people's kids again?
> 
> And as far as EPI...take a look here http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/board to see how non-partisan they are. Looks like tweed is now acceptable attire for the next Apalachin Meeting.


I was referring to the person who said that, not you. After rereading the last sentence of my post you quote here, I can se how you would come to that conclusion. You can easily read back to find the original post that I was talking about.


----------



## Bigwaved

GOAT LOCKER said:


> It is unfortunate that we have reached the point where we can't have a national debate about this kind of stuff without lies, distortion and demagoguery. I'm not talking about this thread, as it has stayed pretty calm, but about our politicians and political commentators in the old/new media.


It is, isn't it? My instinct tells me that we are not alone regarding this feeling. I would like to add that it is frustrating as well.


----------

